Res Judicata (Claim Preclusion)

173 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Davila v. DELTA AIR Lines, Inc.
  326 F.3d 1183· 11th Cir.· 2003-04-03 ·cited 123×
  Manuel Davila, a Delta Air Lines pilot, appealed the dismissal of his breach of contract and ADA claims on res judicata grounds. The court held that Davila's prior action before the System Board, though dismissed using jurisdictional language, was actually decided on the merits,
• Lombard v. The Bd. OF Educ. OF the City OF NEW York
  502 F.2d 631· 2d Cir.· 1974-07-22 ·cited 90×
  The court held that res judicata does not bar a federal claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for denial of procedural due process, even if related issues were litigated in state court, because the federal remedy is supplementary and the plaintiff was deprived of a protected liberty inter
• Pignons S.A. de Mecanique v. Polaroid Corp.
  701 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1983-02-28 ·cited 73×
  The court held that collateral estoppel barred relitigation of Pignons' Lanham Act claim because the essential elements of the claim had been decided against Pignons in a prior suit, and new advertisements were not materially different.
• Rhodes v. Meyer
  334 F.2d 709· 8th Cir.· 1964-08-05 ·cited 64×
  The court held that the prior judgment in Rhodes v. Houston was res judicata as to claims and parties previously litigated, and that stare decisis applied to new defendants based on the established legal principles regarding judicial and official immunity.
• Cheryll Gray v. Lacke
  885 F.2d 399· 7th Cir.· 1989-09-22 ·cited 60×
  The court held that res judicata does not bar individual-capacity claims against employees, collateral estoppel does not apply to unaddressed constitutional claims, and Wisconsin's six-year personal rights statute of limitations applies to § 1983 actions.
• Loudermill v. Cleveland Bd. OF Educ.
  721 F.2d 550· 6th Cir.· 1983-11-17 ·cited 60×
  The judge would affirm the district court's decision, finding that the appellants received minimal due process and that Donnelly was precluded from proceeding due to prior state court dismissals.
• Engelhardt v. Bell & Howell Co.
  327 F.2d 30· 8th Cir.· 1964-01-30 ·cited 56×
  A prior judgment on the merits based on the same cause of action bars subsequent claims, even if based on different statutes or alleging continuing violations, if the underlying wrongful acts and injuries are the same.
• Genworth Life & Annuity Ins. Co. v. TVPX ARS, Inc.
  959 F.3d 1318· 11th Cir.· 2020-05-26 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by enjoining TVPX's lawsuit based on res judicata without sufficient factual findings that Genworth's conduct had remained unchanged since the prior settlement.
• Ishmael Jaffree v. Wallace
  837 F.2d 1461· 11th Cir.· 1988-01-22 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the doctrine of res judicata barred the plaintiffs' action because the issues and parties were sufficiently identical to a prior litigation, and the district court did not err in denying the motion to recuse.
• Richardson v. Ala. State Bd. OF Educ.
  935 F.2d 1240· 11th Cir.· 1991-07-17 ·cited 42×
  The court held that a prior consent decree did not preclude the plaintiff's Title VII claim against the County Board because the parties and the specific harms alleged were different, and the County Board's actions created new claims.
• Silas J. Alexander v. Chicago Park Dist.
  773 F.2d 850· 7th Cir.· 1985-09-19 ·cited 39×
  The court held that res judicata barred claims based on the same operative facts as prior litigation, and that Title VII is not the exclusive remedy for employment discrimination claims by state employees under § 1983, but Title VI claims cannot be brought under § 1983.
• Dale Ingram, Inc. v. The United States
  475 F.2d 1177· Ct. Cl.· 1973-03-16 ·cited 36×
  The court affirmed the Board's decisions, finding that the plaintiff's claims for increased equitable adjustment and reformation were not supported by substantial evidence or applicable legal standards, and that the government was entitled to assert an offset.
• Ethridge v. Harbor House Rest.
  861 F.2d 1389· 9th Cir.· 1988-11-17 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the removed complaints and should have remanded them to state court. The dismissal of the first complaint should not have had claim-preclusive effect on the second.
• Hickey v. Duffy
  827 F.2d 234· 7th Cir.· 1987-08-24 ·cited 32×
  The court held that even if a federal statutory claim was ripe, the district court should have abstained from deciding it due to parallel state proceedings and important state interests.
• A. v. Costantini
  681 F.2d 1199· 9th Cir.· 1982-07-22 ·cited 32×
  Res judicata bars the instant lawsuit because it arises from the same transactional nucleus of facts as a prior suit, and the appellant has not adequately pleaded fraudulent concealment to avoid the bar.
• Clift C. Lane v. Peterson
  899 F.2d 737· 8th Cir.· 1990-03-30 ·cited 30×
  Claims against the panel members are barred by res judicata as they arise from the same nucleus of operative facts as a prior suit. Claims against the attorney are dismissed on their merits.
• FAY v. S. Colonie Cent. Sch. Dist.
  802 F.2d 21· 2d Cir.· 1986-09-24 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the school district is not entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity, that prior state proceedings did not preclude Fay's damages claims, and that the district court properly dismissed Fay's constitutional claims against the Commissioner.
• Shaw v. State OF Cal. Dep't OF Alcoholic Bev. Control
  788 F.2d 600· 9th Cir.· 1986-04-28 ·cited 30×
  The Eleventh Amendment and claim preclusion bar suits against state agencies and officials for damages, but not prospective injunctive relief. Issue preclusion does not apply to claims against municipal defendants when the initial tribunal lacked jurisdiction to directly decide t
• Clark v. Yosemite Cmty. Coll. Dist.
  785 F.2d 781· 9th Cir.· 1986-03-25 ·cited 30×
  The court held that res judicata barred claims arising from conduct prior to the state court judgment, but not claims arising from subsequent conduct.
• Mrs. Shirley Baker (Truvillion) v. King's Daughters Hosp.
  614 F.2d 520· 5th Cir.· 1980-03-28 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the prior dismissal of an EEOC suit for procedural defects did not bar the plaintiff's subsequent Title VII action, nor did the EEOC's filing of that suit preclude it from issuing a right-to-sue letter. The court also held that the plaintiff's § 1981 claim was
• In re Ellis Victor Kapp v. Naturelle, Inc.
  611 F.2d 703· 8th Cir.· 1979-12-19 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the bankruptcy judge erred in disallowing the creditors' claims because the state court default judgments against the bankrupt were res judicata and precluded relitigation of Kapp's personal liability.
• S.E.L. Maduro (Florida), Inc. v. M/V Antonio de Gastaneta
  833 F.2d 1477· 11th Cir.· 1987-12-14 ·cited 29×
  The court held that res judicata and collateral estoppel do not bar an in rem action for maritime lien foreclosure after an in personam breach of contract action between the same parties, because the causes of action and issues are distinct.
• Harris v. Pernsley
  755 F.2d 338· 3d Cir.· 1985-02-22 ·cited 26×
  The court held that res judicata, the eleventh amendment, official immunity, and abstention doctrines did not bar the inmates' claims for damages and injunctive relief.
• McLAUGHLIN v. Bradlee
  803 F.2d 1197· D.C. Cir.· 1986-10-21 ·cited 25×
  Prior judgments preclude relitigation of all matters not already conceded by the appellant, and sanctions were properly imposed for pursuing this litigation.
• Whitfield v. City OF Knoxville
  756 F.2d 455· 6th Cir.· 1985-03-06 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the plaintiff's Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) claim was not barred by res judicata because the claim could not have been timely filed in the prior state court action due to federal filing and deferral requirements. The court also affirmed the den
• Jones v. Preuit & Mauldin
  808 F.2d 1435· 11th Cir.· 1987-02-02 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the seizure of property without notice under Alabama's attachment statute, which was an established state procedure, did not fall under the Parratt v. Taylor exception, and that private defendants could assert qualified immunity but failed to prove they acted
• United States v. Dann
  706 F.2d 919· 9th Cir.· 1983-05-19 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the Western Shoshone's aboriginal title was not extinguished by the Indian Claims Commission award because 'payment' under 25 U.S.C. § 70u(a) requires actual transfer of funds, not merely appropriation, and that various federal land laws did not clearly expres
• ST. Louis Union Tr. Co. v. United States
  617 F.2d 1293· 8th Cir.· 1980-03-11 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the Escrow Agreement was unambiguous, precluding parol evidence, and that Stone possessed sufficient 'property or rights to property' in the escrowed income to be subject to IRS tax levies.
• Al Derrickson v. City OF Danville
  845 F.2d 715· 7th Cir.· 1988-04-28 ·cited 22×
  The court held that while a consent decree approving a voting rights settlement remains valid, the state is not precluded from prosecuting the officials who negotiated it.
• The Petromanagement Corp. v. Acme-Thomas Joint Venture
  835 F.2d 1329· 10th Cir.· 1988-01-06 ·cited 20×
  The court held that federal law of res judicata applies to diversity actions and that the plaintiff's second lawsuit was barred by claim preclusion because the claims arose from a series of connected transactions that should have been litigated together in the first action.
• Sidag Aktiengesellschaft v. Smoked Foods Prods. Co., Inc.
  776 F.2d 1270· 5th Cir.· 1985-11-19 ·cited 20×
  The court held that res judicata barred claims against Ronald Cox and Sales, but collateral estoppel did not fully preclude claims against Marcus Cox and Smoked Foods, requiring remand for further proceedings on certain issues.
• Baxas Howell Mobley, Inc. v. BP OIL Co.
  630 So. 2d 207· Fla. 3d DCA· 1993-12-21 ·cited 18×
  The court held that neither claim preclusion nor issue preclusion barred the broker's action against the buyer for breach of an oral commission agreement.
• N. Natural GAS Co. v. Grounds
  931 F.2d 678· 10th Cir.· 1991-04-29 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the appellant's federal claims were barred by res judicata due to a prior Kansas Supreme Court decision, rendering the appeals moot.
• Frazier v. King
  873 F.2d 820· 5th Cir.· 1989-05-30 ·cited 18×
  The majority found that neither federal nor state claim preclusion rules barred the plaintiff's § 1983 claim. The dissenting judge disagreed with the suggestion that a federal claim preclusion rule could apply.
• Magnus Elecs., Inc. v. LA Republica Argentina
  830 F.2d 1396· 7th Cir.· 1987-09-08 ·cited 18×
  Res judicata bars the current suit because it involves the same cause of action and parties as a prior suit dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and the additional allegations were available previously. Rule 11 sanctions are reversed and remanded for reconsideration
• First Nat'l Bank OF Waukesha v. Warren
  796 F.2d 999· 7th Cir.· 1986-07-24 ·cited 18×
  The court held that mandamus is an appropriate remedy to review the denial of a jury trial, despite the general rule that mandamus is an extraordinary writ.
• Jaffe v. Grant
  793 F.2d 1182· 11th Cir.· 1986-07-18 ·cited 18×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that it had jurisdiction over the counterclaim and properly gave full faith and credit to the state court's judgment, and that the sanctions imposed were just.
• Compagnie DES Bauxites de Guinee v. L'Union Atlantique S.A. D'Assurances
  723 F.2d 357· 3d Cir.· 1983-12-22 ·cited 18×
  The court held that res judicata and collateral estoppel did not bar the current suit, that discovery on personal jurisdiction should be permitted, and that the claim was not necessarily time-barred or precluded by the lack of a fortuitous event.
• Int'l Order OF Job's Daughters v. Lindeburg & Co.
  727 F.2d 1087· Fed. Cir.· 1984-02-08 ·cited 17×
  The TTAB correctly granted summary judgment to cancel the trademark registration based on the preclusive effect of a prior Ninth Circuit judgment that the appellant's emblem was a functional aesthetic component, not a trademark.
• Consol. Television Cable Serv., Inc. v. The City OF Frankfort
  857 F.2d 354· 6th Cir.· 1988-09-21 ·cited 16×
  The court held that res judicata barred Consolidated's action and that Community was an agent of the City for state action immunity purposes.
• Lisak v. Mercantile Bancorp, Inc.
  834 F.2d 668· 7th Cir.· 1987-11-25 ·cited 16×
  The court held that claims arising from the trust's establishment and early operation were barred by res judicata, but claims of post-1978 maladministration and RICO violations could proceed, reversing the dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction over a defendant served under
• Hughlan Long and S. Dewey Haas v. State
  805 F.2d 1542· 11th Cir.· 1986-12-19 ·cited 16×
• United Home Rentals, Inc. v. Tex. Real Est. Comm'n & The State of Tex.
  716 F.2d 324· 5th Cir.· 1983-10-03 ·cited 16×
  The court held that Pullman abstention was inappropriate and the constitutional issue of free speech should be decided on the merits.
• Riddle v. Cerro Wire & Cable Grp., Inc.
  902 F.2d 918· 11th Cir.· 1990-06-05 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the plaintiff was not precluded by a prior EEOC suit from bringing her individual Title VII action because the EEOC's suit was not filed within 180 days and no conciliation agreement to which the plaintiff was a party was reached, and res judicata did not appl
• Ethnic Employees OF the Library OF Congress v. Boorstin
  751 F.2d 1405· D.C. Cir.· 1985-01-11 ·cited 14×
  The court held that claim preclusion did not bar the constitutional claims in one case, but affirmed dismissal of Title VII claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. In the second case, Title VII is the exclusive remedy for some but not all constitutional claims, and
• Joel and Patty Derish v. SAN Mateo-Burlingame Bd. OF Realtors
  724 F.2d 1347· 9th Cir.· 1983-12-23 ·cited 14×
  A prior state court judgment on the merits under the Cartwright Act bars a subsequent federal court suit under the Sherman Act based on the same claim and facts, even though federal antitrust claims fall under exclusive federal jurisdiction.
• Rowena Kilgoar and Thomas Dow Mitchell v. Colbert Cnty. Bd. OF Educ.
  578 F.2d 1033· 5th Cir.· 1978-08-23 ·cited 14×
  Claims based on conduct occurring subsequent to prior litigation are not barred by res judicata, even if the nature of the conduct is similar to that previously litigated.
• Roscoe-Ajax Constr. Co., Inc. v. The United States
  499 F.2d 639· Ct. Cl.· 1974-06-19 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the treatment of a controversy by the parties and the Board should be the primary factor in determining if it constitutes a single dispute for purposes of the S & E decision.
• Keith v. Aldridge
  900 F.2d 736· 4th Cir.· 1990-04-09 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the prior settlement and dismissal with prejudice of Keith I, which resolved claims arising from the same transaction or series of transactions, barred Keith's subsequent action alleging a due process violation related to the same employment termination.
• Greening v. Moran
  953 F.2d 301· 7th Cir.· 1992-01-08 ·cited 12×
  The court held that abstention under Younger was appropriate when the federal suit was filed, but claim preclusion applies now that state proceedings have concluded. Claims against the Trust Fund were dismissed for lack of standing. Sanctions were affirmed.